Початок перебігу строку досудового розслідування до повідомлення особі про підозру

The article deals with the problematic issues of determining the moment when the pre-trial investigation period begins before a person is notified of suspicion. It is stated that the prosecution often delays the moment of serving a person with a notice of suspicion in order to artificially extend the pre-trial investigation period by conducting the necessary investigative (search) and other procedural actions aimed at exposing a person or verifying his/her involvement in a criminal offense. The author emphasizes the evaluative content of the criterion of “sufficient evidence for suspicion”, which leads to its subjective interpretation, and this is deliberately used by the prosecution to delay the moment of serving a person with a notice of suspicion and to delay the pre-trial investigation, even despite the actual availability of the required amount of evidence forming suspicion. It is substantiated that a person who is exposed or checked for involvement in a criminal offense, without the appropriate procedural status, is deprived of the right to an effective remedy. It is noted that in order to limit the prosecutorial activity against an exposed person, it is necessary to introduce a mechanism of judicial control over the establishment of the initial moment of the investigation period. The author emphasizes that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights shows that artificially extending the pre-trial investigation period leads to a significant violation of human rights when a person is in an uncertain state regarding the charges against him/her for a long time. It is noted that the introduction of a mechanism of judicial control over the beginning of the pre-trial investigation period is necessary, since the court as a judicial body is able to limit the arbitrary use of investigative (search) actions and procedural coercion against a person who is exposed or checked for involvement in a criminal offense. It is proved that judicial control must necessarily be associated with the beginning of the implementation of any cognitive means of procedural nature (investigative (search) action, measure to ensure criminal proceedings, etc.) used to verify the involvement of a person in a criminal offense.